Peekaboo Falls Fish Passage Discussion

Overview

Peekaboo Falls is a natural waterfall that currently acts as a total barrier to upstream passage of bull trout in Box Canyon Creek. It is located 1.6 miles above the confluence of the creek and Kachess Reservoir (47.376066, -121.258384). Bull Trout in Box Canyon Creek are a genetically distinct population (Small et al 2009) that migrate between habitat in Box Canyon Creek and Kachess Lake. Limited stream capacity for spawning and rearing has been identified as a primary limiting factor for the population. Spawning and juvenile rearing is currently limited to 1.6 miles of Box Canyon Creek below Peekaboo Falls. That habitat was significantly reduced in 1912 when Kachess Dam was built, seasonally inundating what would have once been complex fluvial habitat in old growth forest in the lowest 0.4 miles of the creek. This 0.4 miles is now seasonally inundated by the reservoir, causing the reach to have little to no vegetation and unstable channels that shift from year to year. It provides no significant rearing habitat for juvenile bull trout.

Peekaboo Falls is almost passable (adult fish have been observed jumping up the falls, but not making it all the way over) and there is some evidence that bull trout occupied the stream upstream of the Falls in the recent past. The Yakima Bull Trout Working Group has long discussed whether providing fish passage at the falls and/or transporting fish past the Falls would be an effective strategy to expand productive rearing and spawning habitat for the Box Canyon Bull Trout population. This page has been set up as a record of these discussions and sources of information.

Link to Scott memo- Box Canyon reintroduction Fact sheet on desktop

Description of Peekaboo Falls

Peekaboo Falls at 5 cfs, as measured 1.5 miles downstream near the Kachess Campground.

Peekaboo Falls is a natural barrier on Box Canyon Creek formed by bedrock and boulders. It is 5.5 meters (18 ft) total height over a 13-meter lateral distance; however, the first 2 meters (6 ft) is the steepest and the likely cause of lack of fish passage.

Habitat Conditions upstream of Peekaboo Falls

The USFS did level stream surveys in Box Canyon Creek in 1989, 1995, and 2002.  They used Hankin and Reeves methodology as described in the 1989 Stream Inventory Handbook.

In 1989, the stream was surveyed from the mouth to a point just upstream of the Rachel Lake trailhead (4.2 miles reported, but about 4.6 miles per calculations in 2017).  Above Peekaboo Falls was considered well- to moderately-shaded and had heavy recreational use.  The creek met forest standards for fine sediment, and did not meet forest standards for temperature and large wood.  Forest standards for pools were met in the lower part of the reach above Peekaboo, but not met in the reach above the first culvert.

In 1995, the stream was surveyed from the mouth to the outlet of Rachel Lake (7.7 miles).  The area above Peekaboo Falls again was well- to moderately- shaded, had heavy recreational use, and did not meet standards for wood. This time it did not meet forest standards for pools in the lower part nor the reach above the first culvert.

In 2002, the stream was surveyed from the mouth to a point just upstream of the Rachel Lake trailhead (4.09 miles reported, but about 4.6 miles per calculations in 2017).  This survey documented human waste on the banks of the stream.  Data was not reportedly similarly as in the previous two surveys, so comparisons are not made.

In 2016, the stream was surveyed from the mouth to Peekaboo Falls, and in 2017 it was surveyed from Peekaboo Falls to a point just upstream of the Rachel lake trailhead.  Above Peekaboo Falls, while wood load met some wood criteria for several different criteria for properly functioning streams in the first 1800 meters, most criteria in this reach were not met, and none of the wood criteria were met for the upper 1040 meters.  Pool criteria were not met by several different standards for properly functioning streams throughout the creek, though pool frequency and quality did improve in the upper 500 meters.

As noted in the 1989 survey summary, stream temperature presumably measured near the Kachess campground did meet forest standards in 1989, but did not in 1990.  In 2016,

Fish usage upstream of Peekaboo Falls

A fish survey on 8/8/1994 by Plum Creek above Peekaboo Falls found bull trout between 0 and 3” and 3 to 6” over five 100-meter reaches between just below Bomber Falls and up to the 100 meters above the second culvert.  Presumably the presence of the 0 to 3” size indicate successful spawning above Peekaboo Falls in 1993 since that size class is not likely to be able pass Peekaboo Falls from downstream.

A nighttime snorkel survey in 100 meters just above peekaboo falls by the USFS in 2000 found mostly cutthroat and sculpin followed by tailed frogs, and a rainbow trout and a rainbow x cutthroat hybrid.

Nighttime snorkel surveys by the WDFW in 2017 found cutthroat trout and sculpin species only in four separate reaches totaling 2,179 meters between Bomber Falls and 5M Falls. Cutthroat trout densities were very high relative to other Bull Trout streams surveyed similarly.

The 1995 stream survey noted that the presence of bull trout above peekaboo falls was likely made possible by a debris jam below those falls that raised the water level below the falls.

Options for providing access to Habitat Above Peekaboo Falls

Describe work to date to assess the falls- surveys, Bruce concepts, etc Interfluv assessment

Modification of the Falls

Initial discussion focused on the idea that modifications could be made to the falls to make them more passable, including the construction of cement walls, excavation of portions of the bedrock, and use of large wood at the downstream outlet of the pool below the falls to raise the base pool elevation.

Fish Transport

pros and cons of transporting adults

past discussion of options to catch fry and juveniles at the mount of the creek- for transport (possibly after rearing) to above falls- pros: local genetics, second chance for fish almost certain to perish in reservoir

Questions that have been raised:

Have bull trout been present above Peekaboo Falls in the past?

details on past reports from Plum Creek (?) surveys

Mitch Long notes old-timers have told him that they used to fish at the falls and move the bull trout upstream over the falls Question of whether past projects- or natural log jams- raised the level of the pool below the falls in the past, allowing for volitional passage

Are there any unique characteristics of the habitat upstream of the falls that might be impacted?

Ref cutthroat studies but note sympatry in past and in other parts of the basin

Are there threats to the persistence of Bull Trout in the habitat above the falls that are significant enough that we would want to avoid establishing bull trout there until threats are reduced?

Discuss different stances on recreation issues and response needed.

Next Steps:

Funding for surveys and alternatives assessment?

Fish transport- adults? YN juveniles?